Even the keenest hunter knows survival depends on understanding the system, not just chasing abundance.
Previously I made a bold claim that poverty has always been the natural baseline for humanity and that wealth has been the anomaly. This is a new idea for me as well but one that doesn't come without careful analysis and self educational research from my own observations of historical events and data, as well as real time observational study of our current world. What I said then I didn't say lightly. I really am leaning towards this as an interesting matter of fact.
From my own research hue|mans were poor before cap|it|all|ism, therefore capitalism did not cause poverty. And I know that may be hard to grasp at first but this is something I really believe. And maybe growing up poor plays a large role in this perspective, but I have found that wealth is something that is built up rather than inherently foundational.
That's hard to argue against if you consider that even before "money" was a thing, living poor is the natural starting point. One is simply not born into richness but some do get rich because their parents or predecessors give it to them. Are we not born without wealth? Does a new born babe have wealth? Are we not born naked and fragile?
Now I was met with a fair argument by Valued-Customer and one point that caught my attention the most was his argument over hunter gatherers. After careful thought and a bit more research I only have more questions.
I'm thinking, if hunter-gatherer life was truly wealthy and superior, wouldn't humanity have abandoned agriculture and returned to it thousands of years ago?
When it comes to large population survival, food reliability, long-term stability, agriculture or even horticulture for that matter, has exceedingly outcompeted hunter gathering. Granted they both have pros and cons but the results, historically speaking, have been more beneficial.
Valued-Customer pointed out that a single mammoth kill could feed an entire village for a month. I think it could be more if they rationed it out more carefully and had methods of preserving food for long periods of times. I am not sure if at those times such methods were even made aware of, but nonetheless possible. However given the circumstances, I want to highlight this as an example of occasional abundance, and not systemic wealth.
This is because I think that our ancestors were incredibly lucky for the moment. Once megafauna disappeared, humans had to invent agriculture. Not to mention that hunting wasn't always successful and many perished due to starvation as a result.
Even in their richest moments, hunter-gatherers relied on fragile abundance that could vanish overnight. True wealth is persistent, and not temporary.
Now, agriculture did caused more labor, hierarchy, and malnutrition to develop but it also produced consistent surplus, supported larger populations, and laid the foundation for lasting wealth. This is proof that wealth is a system rather than a natural default condition.
All of this ties directly to my core argument that poverty is the baseline and wealth is the exception that requires systems to persist. I indeed agree, centralization can allow a few to capture the wealth generated by society, but the underlying systems still produces wealth that never existed before.
In other words, as the title to this post says, despite poor and imperfect distribution practices, capitalism and markets didn’t create poverty but rather they created the possibility for systemic wealth.
Any apparent “wealth” in history is either temporary or controlled. The point being, that the natural baseline is subsistence. Systems like agriculture, trade, and markets are what allow consistent surplus and innovation to emerge. Without them, even brief abundance disappears.
The same principles very much apply today, without systems that protect innovation and our surplus, wealth still remains the anomaly, and not the baseline.
Like the fox, our ancestors had to be vigilant and not rely on temporary abundance.
Image sources are from pixebay and free to use.